“Your reviewer toughness score is 20%. This means that 20% of the time you gave lower scores than the other reviewers of the submissions you reviewed. Reviewers are encouraged to maintain a toughness score closer to 50% so that they are working on roughly the same scale. You may want to update your reviews with this in mind.”
I wonder what is going to happen if all reviewers actually try to reach the 50% toughness level. Meanwhile, I will maintain my independent opinions.
Every time I see people listing publications on their websites without linking to the papers or videos, I hear they say: I am here to show off my publications and I do not really care whether you can access the papers. (Or, in a slightly more excusable scenario: I am too weak to not bow to the publisher request of withholding preprints online for 1 year. BTW this is why I do not submit to CGF.)
Best practice: create a public GitHub repo/page to share all paper information (abstract, pdf, video, code, etc.), so that all co-authors can edit and the search engines can index. (I am doing this for all my recent papers.)
If you need to try out a method, which you do first: (1) read and implement papers, (2) compile and run open source codes.
The peer review model for scientific publications has not changed much for centuries. It is about to, at least for computer science and especially for machine learning (e.g. distill.pub), where sharing and reproduction is much easier than other science and engineering disciplines.
I was searching my email box about the “fence” of the house and surprised to find out how many paper reviews contain the phrase “on the fence”.
A core skill, in art, science, or even life, is the ability and willingness to objectively perceive subjective reality.
Notice the swap of the two adjectives. Supposedly, perception is subjective and reality is objective. However, that is a fixed given condition. Our bodies and brains act like filters, so reality is always subjective. What we can strive for is objective perception and depiction of the (given) subjective reality.
For example, in drawing, one has to perceive what is really out there, which can vary depending on the individual subjectivity, in the physical world, in the memory, or in the imagination.
In deriving a math proof or following a scientific argument, one has to rely on what is assumed to be true (axioms, theorems, conjectures) which are subjective by nature.
SIGGRAPH deadline: you are completely dead!
CHI/UIST deadline: you are really dead!
CVPR deadline: you are half dead and can continue to submit supplementary materials like a zombie.
My academic lineage traces to Jung and Freud instead of Gauss, Laplace, Newton, or Leibniz.
I guess this partially explains my research interest and mentoring style.
🙂
Hatching is a core technique to convey shading and texture in sketching.
I have hatched algorithmically so it is only fitting for me to practice manually as well.
This exercise also gave me research ideas which I would not be able to conceive without the artist perspective.
Both require sighting novel and interesting ideas or scenes. Without this important first step, the rest will fail even with perfect execution.
The author needs to be patient and persevering to complete a sufficiently challenging work without ever giving up.
Strong objectivity is required to help us see the reality without being blinded or obscured by our biases and wishes.
Both are among the few activities (like workout and meditation) that can force me to be present and into the zone.
Theme: Rubric. Get a free blog at WordPress.com